Flash Site Design - Site design critique please

Author

Site design critique please

AlexisNeel

2004-03-31, 5:29 am

Hello.

I'd like some critique of my site design. Please bear in mind that my target
audience is high end photographers and ad agencies, and I'm not too concerned
with file size, thinking most have broadband. And since I am showing the
quality of my printing, I had to keep the file sizes as big as they are to show
the printing as close to the original as possible.

[L=www.alexisneel.com]http://www.alexisneel.com[/L]

Thanks

Alexis

Linda Rathgeber - TMM

2004-03-31, 7:28 am

One thing you might want to reconsider is using all caps for text. It is
very hard to read.

The whole site could have been done as HTML and images. I'm curious
about why you chose to use Flash instead.

--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------

kO2n

2004-03-31, 8:29 am

Hi,

Lets begin,

1) Nice idea with the black to white colour scale, though the blue arrow at
the white end isnt quite at the end of the scale.
2) With your preloader its usually a good idea to show how much of the content
has been loaded, a percentage indicator would be cool here i think.
3) Nice idea with the galleries that a show reel plays and then the thumbnails
appear but after awhile it didnt feel right, cant put my finger on why. Point 2
applies here also.
4) Everything else seems working. A few photographer names arent links, i
assume it's because there is no available web address.

Things I'd consider changing:
I know your emphasis is on black and white but think about adding a little bit
of colour, it'll make it all the more attractive. Black and white looks a
little basic in my opinion. I'd also add a subtle roll over effect on the
buttons, to add a bit of dimension to the page, its a little 2D at the moment.
And Maybe Speed up the transitions in the gallery.

Hope some of that helps, remember its just what i think, it doesnt mean i'm
right.
Regards,
Viru.

petrus700117

2004-03-31, 8:29 am

Please say how many kb each loading-screen is, we want to know how long the
wait is, or parhaps % which is common.

Otherwise a nice site, abit slow parhaps, but that might be just the feeling
you want to give to your visitors. Calmness...

best regs

Peter

AlexisNeel

2004-03-31, 9:29 am

Thanks for all the reply's...man that was qucik. I'll answer each one as they
are valid points:

Linda,

The font is Garamond 3 SC and yes, even the samll letters look capitialized.
I like the font, and personally don't think its hard to read. Its also to add
some "style" but maybe I should find something else. Helvetica and similar
fonts just don't seem "designished" enough.

As for why Flash, I chose it because it best protects my clients images (since
they hold the copyrights and without putting a watermark on each). Granted,
even Flash can be "broken into" but it is much harder to do so compared to
figuring out an address on a site where all the images are stored. I did so
for the benefit of my clients.

Viru,

The blue arrow is supposed to be where the last 2 white areas seperate. It is
subtle (maybe too much to expect from differning monitors), but there is a
seperation there.

The preloader idea is a good one, but I can't figure out how to do it. I
didn't spend a lot of time researching it and maybe I should. I would like
that feature, but I'm no boy wonder when it comes to code.

Maybe the gallery thing for you is that it becomes redundant? Or the fading
thing lasts too long? The design aspect of it is that the fade in represents
how a print fades in in the developer in the darkroom. A metaphore there, but
maybe I'm the only one who gets it. I have thought about doing the fades
differently, so that the next image fades into the previous one as it fades
out. It would speed it up a bit. I personally hate having to click so much
when visiting photo sites so making a movie that the viewer can sit back and
enjoy was my reasoning. I tried the galleries without a fade it, but they were
too static and abrupt for my taste.

Yep, some just don't have sites.

Since I only do B&W, adding color isn't an option. The toning and lith
sections add some color though. And the field is having another rejuvination
thankfully. :-)

The rollover idea, and I'm thinking you are suggesting on the text type links
and not the thumbnails, would be a nice touch...thanks.

Peter,

See above. When I can take the time to learn the code, its what I want to do.
Thanks.

Thank you to all for your ideas and opinions. I appreciate them.

Sincerely,

Alexis

kO2n

2004-03-31, 9:29 am

Ah i totally get the metaphor, i'm not a photographer so couldnt make the
connection.

As for the preloader, i've done a tutorial found here:
[L=Tutorial]http://www.geocities.com/lostboyviru/Preloader_Tutorial/tutorial_1.h
tm[/L]

Hope that helps.
Could you review my site please, theres a thread on this msg board.

Thanks.
Viru.

posted.by\(Vern\);

2004-03-31, 9:29 am

>> As for why Flash, I chose it because it best protects my clients images
(since
they hold the copyrights and without putting a watermark on each). Granted,
even Flash can be "broken into" but it is much harder to do so compared to
figuring out an address on a site where all the images are stored. I did so
for the benefit of my clients.<<

Just so you know, pressing the button, PRINT SCREEN on a PC keyboard does a
screen capture. The images are not protected in the least and no harder to
get than if they were in HTML. A good thing to know, yes?

--
Regards,
--Vern
===========================
onClipEvent(doSomethingStupid){
setProperty("Face", color, #FF0000);
_root.audio = "uh oh!";
}

AlexisNeel

2004-03-31, 11:38 am

Vern,

Yes you are right...and I knew that. However, the quality you get from that
process isn't the same as you'd get taking an image from someones site folder.
Since each image in my site is about 60k to 85k, thats a whole lot better
quality than the screen capture/edit to get just image, method. Also, by doing
it in Flash, the images load, or in my case, half of the images load, and then
they can be viewed. In the html method, or at least in my limited knowledge of
it, each of those 65k to 85k images would have to load seperatly. So the
viewer would roll over a thumbnail and then have to wait for each image to load
independently. Flash's benefit is that only some of the images have to load
before you can start to view them, allowing the rest to load, in the background
so to speak, while viewing the first ones.

Alexis

[q][i]Originally posted by: [b][b]Newsgroup User[/b][/b][/i][color=darkred]
(since
they hold the copyrights and without putting a watermark on each). Granted,
even Flash can be "broken into" but it is much harder to do so compared to
figuring out an address on a site where all the images are stored. I did so
for the benefit of my clients.<<

Just so you know, pressing the button, PRINT SCREEN on a PC keyboard does a
screen capture. The images are not protected in the least and no harder to
get than if they were in HTML. A good thing to know, yes?

--
Regards,
--Vern
===========================
onClipEvent(doSomethingStupid){
setProperty("Face", color, #FF0000);
_root.audio = "uh oh!";
}[/q]

AlexisNeel

2004-03-31, 11:38 am

Viru,

I like the way your windows move when clicking on a manu item. Cool idea.
And of course the little white sillohette of the girl...maybe she should be
clickable for something. A hidden part of the site perhaps?

And nice photo og the girl in your gallery...did you take it?

Nice image.

Alexis

[q][i]Originally posted by: [b][b]kO2n[/b][/b][/i]
Ah i totally get the metaphor, i'm not a photographer so couldnt make the
connection.

As for the preloader, i've done a tutorial found here:
[L=Tutorial]http://www.geocities.com/lostboyviru/Preloader_Tutorial/tutorial_1.h
tm[/L]

Hope that helps.
Could you review my site please, theres a thread on this msg board.

Thanks.
Viru.[/q]

Linda Rathgeber - TMM

2004-03-31, 1:37 pm

AlexisNeel wrote:

> As for why Flash, I chose it because it best protects my clients images (since
> they hold the copyrights and without putting a watermark on each).

Viewers can still make screen shots...

--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------

AlexisNeel

2004-03-31, 1:37 pm

Linda, I'll repeat what I said above on this:

Yes you are right...and I knew that. However, the quality you get from that
process isn't the same as you'd get taking an image from someones site folder.
Since each image in my site is about 60k to 85k, thats a whole lot better
quality than the screen capture/edit to get just image, method. Also, by doing
it in Flash, the images load, or in my case, half of the images load, and then
they can be viewed. In the html method, or at least in my limited knowledge of
it, each of those 65k to 85k images would have to load seperatly. So the viewer
would roll over a thumbnail and then have to wait for each image to load
independently. Flash's benefit is that only some of the images have to load
before you can start to view them, allowing the rest to load, in the background
so to speak, while viewing the first ones.

Thanks though,

Alexis